Allu. Srinivasa Rao v. 9mt..+rya Ma-dhavi

Smt..Jaya Madhavi, D/O TatlRao, Agpd about40 yrs, Oo: Accountant. R/O 69 Pond Street, Sharon MA 02067: UbAH;0. Oi,-;;-6iarl, ,*"i oiailorh;; "" holder, Ganta Tata Rao. S/t E#igtrff#:^T"1"..:f vtfffi.*,#J.ff':#f,1{,.tBit;["",4i:;,' ...Respondent IA NO:1 OF 2019 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circ rmstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the peiitio;. irrt. r+igt cour: may-oe pr.*Lo ,o suspend the order, dated. 21 11 .2019 passed in r.A7744 0f :r )19, i" F.bo p. r.ro. 427o1 2o17 the XV Addr. District Judge-cumxv Gt*potit"n iessions by Juctge- Cum-ll Addl Family Judge, Kukatpafli Counsel for the petitioner : Sri. O \fRao Counsel for the Respondent : Sri M phani Ktrmar fNot.pres,: rt) ctvtl R EvtstoN PETITlo N l{O: 294I OF 2019 Civil Revision filed under Anide 221 of the Constitutio r of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2o19 passed rn r,A 1'746 ot 2o19in r: c.o.p, No. 1714 ot 2015 0n the fire of the court of the XV Addr. District Judge-c:r m_XV Metroporitan Sessions Judge Cum-ll Addl Family Judge, Kukatpally at Mi1,r pur, Ranga Reddy Districd. Between: Allu. srinivasa Rao, S/O Krishna lrlurthy, Aged about 46 Yrs, Occ-. sofhrare 'E"gi*;,' R/o H- No. 16-31-irp-59 ard-60, -Kfti8 Oolony, Kukdpally' Rarga Reddy Distrid. ...Petitioner AND Smt. Java Madhavi, D/O Tata Rao, Aged about 40 Yrs, Occ- Aocountant, R/O 69' FonO S(reet, Sharoir MA 02067, USA-Rep. by her Special Pouier of Aftorney nofOlr, Cania Tata Rao, S/o. Appala Swami' Age:71 years, Occ: Retked emoiov.u. R/o. H. No. 6-36, Vijiywada Road, Vijaya Diary Opposite Road, Hanuman Junction, Bapulapdu, Krishana District. . ...Respondent lA NO: I OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 cPc praying that in the circums{anoes slated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the order, dard.21 .11.2019 passed in l.A 1746 o1 2019 in F.C.O.P. No. ,1iC ot 2015 by the XV Addt. Distr'rct Judge-Cum-XV Metropolitan Sessiom Judge-Cum-ll Addl Family Judge, Kukatpally. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. D V Rao Counsel for the Respondent : Sri M Phani Kumar (Not Present) The Court made the following: ORDER 4 NNRJ crp_28t6_201 g&barch THE HOf,'BLE SRI JI'STICE ITARSIIW} RAO ! ANI'TKOITDA CIVIL Rgfl$OlT Itos. 2a86.294{}A!E) it94l OE.:2(}19 couuolf oRr]ER: Since the parties and tlre issue involve<l in these t]rree Civil Revision Petitions are common, tlr.y ar e being heard together and disposed of by way of this coalm(rr L order.

2. These three Civil Revision Petitiorts are filed under rArticle 227 of the Constitution of India a41 rieved by the docket orders, dated 21.11.2OL9, tn I.A.No-li45 of 20 19 in F.C.O.P.No.1774 of 2O15; I.A.No.1744 cf 2019, in F.C.O.P.No.427 of 2Ol7 and I.A.No. 1746 of 2OL9 in F.C.O.P.No. 1774 of 2015 passed by the learnec XV Additional District Judge-cum-XV Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Il Additional Family Judge, Kukatpally, Miyapur Ranga Reddy District.

3. I.A.No.1745 of 2Ol9 was hled under Order IX Rule VII of C.P.C to set aside the ex parte order, dal ed 1-0.O7.2019 passed in F.C.O.P.No.LV74 of 20 1.5; I.,{..No.Li44. of 20t9 is filed, under Section 151 of C.P.C. to re-open tre evidence of respondent-petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.427 c [ 2Ol7 and I.A.No. 1746 of 2O19 was liled under Section I i1 of C.P.C. to 5 N}R,J qp_2E&_mlg&buclt re-open the evidence of respondent-petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.1774 of 2015 to enable ttre petitioner-respondent to cross-examine P.W. I were allowed on paJrment of costs of Rs.2OO/- to P.W. l. Aggrieved by the said orders, these tlree Civit Revision Petitions were filed by petitioner / respondent/ defendant.

4. The brief facts of ttre case for disposal of these revision cases are as under. Petitioner herein is husband of the respondent. Petitioner herein hled F.C.O,P.No.l774 of 2O 15 under Section 13 (l)(ia)&(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act, 1955) for dissolution of marriage between himself and the respondent solemnized on 3O.O5.1996 and also to cancel the Marriage Certificate bearing No.4 of 1997, dated t6.O8.1997, on the f-rle of Registrarof Marriages, Kanumolu, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh due to disputes between them. It is stated that in view of disputes, the respondent herein approached learned Judge, Family Court of Commonwealth of Masschuetts, United States of America and obtained absolute divorce decree, dated O7.lL.2Ol6 and the same is inforce. 6 NNR,' crp_2tt6_2019&b4clt

5. F.C.O.P.No.1774 of 2015 is fded b5 the petitioner herein and it is coming up on 10.07.2019 for tr s evi{ence. Orl that day, the petitioner was examined as P.Vi I and he also filed his chief-examination alfrdavit. As here was no representation on behalf of tl:e respondent, t he respondent was set ex-parte and. matter was post ,cr orders on '26.A7.2019. It is stated that the counsel re presenting tlre respondent herein is pursuing the matter frc,t a time to tirne and on O7.A7.2O19 the counsel werat tc, Tirumala for Dharshan of Lord Verikateswara Swamy an I returned on LO'.O7.N19. Therefore, he cotrld not attenrl the Court on LO.O7.2OI9 and represent the matter. It is rtated'that his a.bsence is neither willful nor wanton due to above said reason, he could not attend the Court on hat day. [t is further stated that the Special General Port:r of Attorney holder is an old aged person and strlferinl3 with multiple health problems and he is residing at Hanu nan Junction, Krishna District, as such he is unable to atte. I the Court on lO.O7.2Ol9. Therefore, the respondent iled aforesaid Interlocutory Applications to set aside the r x parte order, dated 10.O7.2od9*to re-open her ewidence anrl to recall P.W. 1 7 |o.rR.J qp_2E66-2O t9&b.aet' for tlre pury)ose of cross-exalnination, other'wise, the respondent will be put to irreparable loss-

6. Petitioner herein fil'ed counter-affrdavit in the said applicatio4s denying tl.e averments made in the petitions and stated that the respondent has not hled any documentar5r proof in support of her contention that the counsel representing her went to Tirumala on O7'O9'2O19 for Dharshan of Lord Venkateswara Swamy and retrrrned only on LO.O7.2OL}- It is stated that the resPondent has engaged three Advocates on her behalf (o represent present case, but no one rePresent tJre matter on that day, which shows the intention of tl e respondent to drag on the matter without proceeding further. It is stated that GPA holder is aged about 75 years and suffering from health problems and he has been residing at Hanuman Junction, Krishna District' But, no docurnelt is frled in support of her contention' It is further stated that the trial Court had rightly set her ex Wrte for her non-appearance and there are no grounds to interfer with the impugned docket orders and hence he prayed to dismiss the petitions. 8 TTNRJ crp_2tt6 2019&bar.t

7. Heard Dr.E.V.Rao, learned col- nsel for ttre petitioner. None appeared for tl:e respondent. a. Admittedly, it is a,matrimonial dislr parties. The respondent is residing in Urr i{merica- and she is represented by her fath rte among the ted States of :r as General Power of Attorney Holder.

9. The main contention of the revis before this Court is that the learned II Adrl ion. petitioner tional Family Judge, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District, whil : allowing the petitions, did not consider the fact that the resp cndent here'rrt was regularly absent for hearings and she did r in daily proceedings. He also contended th: ot participate I initially the learned Judge rightly closed the evidence of rl e respondent by setting lr,er ex parte. But, subsequently the earned Judge oirght not to have re-open the case and recall F. ,V.l for facing the cr:oss-examination. In support of his cc r tentions and supporting the orders passed by the learned - ial Court, he also relied on the judgment of tJle Hontle Supr B.V.Smitha Rani v. M.K.Girishl and conte:r eme Court in led that the I Civil Appeal No.4558 of ZOOS 9 NI*.J crp_2tt6_2019&badr -- order passed by the learned Judge in respect of setting the reqrondent ex parte and closing cross-examination of P.W.1 initially; Whereas the judgment relied upon by tlle petitioner before thip Court is distinguishable for the reason that the facts on hand and facts in B.V.Smitha's case are different for the rea.son that in the said judgment the Judge, Family Court fixed the case on three different dates for cross-examination of the appeltant, but the respondent did not avail that opportunity, wherein the Family Court had rightly closed tfre evidence of the respondent therein. In the present case, the order, dated LO.O7.2OL9 clearly shows that the respondent was not provided any opportunity to cross-examine P'W'1 and that as held by this Court in the earlier paras the order passed by the learned Additional Family Judge appears to be an hasty order as on the same date the chief-examination aJlidavit was received and on ttre same day respondent was *t ex parte and, right to cross exarnination was closed and proceeded for pronouncement of the orders on the next date, as such the judgment which is cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner*does not come to his rescue nor it can be applied in the present set of facts. 10 NNRJ crp_2886_201g&barcfi' 1(I. As seen ftom tkre reeord on lo.O7.2tl 19, the rnatter was posted fior trial end on the same day, the petitioner was e:<arrtined as P.W. 1 and he filed his chi''f-examination alfrdavit. As ttre,'Court found that there was nc -epresentation on behalf of nespoddent, she was set ex parte t nd directed to list ttre matter for order on 26.07.2019 direc tly The very passing of the order, dated 10.07.2019 by .he l,earned II Additior,rat DisEict Judge, Kukatpally, taki rg the chief- a-ffrdavit on ttre salne day and closing the exar Lination of tlrc respondgnt on ttre same day appears to be a-r hast5r decision taken by .hirri. F[owever, on an application frled by the responderit herein, the Ilearned Family Co; rt Judge has rightly set asidd the ex parte order so as to gi'z : a fair chance to the respondeot to put up her case by crost; examining the PW. 1 w-hich right can'not be denied. The verl' passing of tJle order by the l'barned Additional Family Jud5l on ttre sarrte day appears to be an elToneous order and s: :ting aside the said order subseqtrently on frling of the presr: rt I.As. cannot be found fatilt :for the two reasons th.at the ver r order itseU is being an erroneous order as it is an hasty order passed without giving an opportunity to the responc t nt. The other 1l N}RJ qp-2tt6-20l9tib&h ground raised is questioning ttre order' dated 2ljl2019 passed in the said I'As', the respondent was continuously absent, as such tl:e learned Judge ought not to have given a chance to her- That ground also appears to be not correct for the reason that no opportunity was given to the respondent to cross-exarnine P.W'1'

11. On the other ground which was raised bY the respondent is tllat whether an Advocate is the competent person to fite an affidavit on behalf of tlle resPondent' in the Country and Admittedly, tlre respondent is not staymg she is staying at United States of Ameri'ca and she is represented by General Power of Attorney holder who is said to be aged about 75 years and law is clear that any person who is acquainted witll the facts of the case and the proceedings can file the a:ffrdavit before the Court bringrng to notice of the Court as to the reasons for non-appearance of the Advocate on tl.e said date and also by the General Power of Attorney appears to be a genuine reas'on There is no bar or prohibition to hle an a-ffidavit by the counsel on record who is acquaintance with the proceedings who was holding vaka-tatnama on behatf of the petitioner' The Hon'lcle Apex NNRJ ca-2886_2019&batch Court had an occasion to consider the lege I question ln Ananta kadu Porobo Desat and othera v. I,alita Poi2, in which it is heldras follows: "Mr Vineet Kuqmr who app€ars on behalf of thr: respondent has noi been able to contest the position that tlt very sarle advoc€.te who. appeared in the suit on behalf of he plaintill could file u, for restoration of the r uit on tle authoritlr of the originql vakalatnama executed by he plaintilf in his favour." "pptictl"" L2. Hence, considering the above dr; ision of tire Hon'ble Strpreme Court and also considerin5; fact that the respondent's right to. cross-e*amine P.W. 1 bt:: ng a genuine reason, as such this Court is of the opinion the t the grounds which are raised by Iearned counsel for the revi, ,ion petitioner \ herein does not hold good and the same are to : : rejected.

13. The trial Court has rightly allowe<l t}le petitions hled by the respondent by giving fair opportunit r to parties to put their case and this Couirt do not see I :ry reason to interfere with the orders passed by the learnec II Additional Judge Family Count, Kukatpally. Hence, his point is 2 19,e1 z Supreme Court Cas€ 681 (1) I i I I 13 NNR-J ctp_2t86_2019&Sdl answered in favour of the respondent and against ttre revision petitioner.

14. In ttrc result, all three rerrision petitions are disrniss6d confirming the docket orders, dated 2l.l L.2Olg, in I.A.No'.I.745 of 2Ot9 in F.C.O.p.No.t774 of 2OttS; I.A.No.1744 of 2OL9 in F.C.O.p.No.427 of 2OLZ and I.A.No.17{6 of 2Ol9 in F.C.O.P.No.t774 of 2OlS passed by the leerned .)fl{ Additional District Judge_cum_XV Metropolitan $egsions Judge-cum - I I Ad d itional Fam ily Judge, Kukggally, $iyapur, Ranga Reddy District. There shall be no ordEr es to @sts. Mispllanpous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SO/- B.REKHA RANI A SISTANT REGISTRAR :+ ,,TRUE COPY'/ One FairCoPY to lhe Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Na (For His LordshiP kind Perusal) CTION OFFICER ikonda To, Addlfamily Ju<tge, Kukahally at Miyapur' Ranga Reddy District'

1. The )O/ Addl. Dislrict Jr'rdge-Cum-XV Metropolitan Sessions Judge Cum{l " 2. ll LRCrcPies i. n* UnOdt S€cretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law' Justice ard Conpany 4. The Secrdary' Telangana Advocal-e: Assocratron Library' High Court {or the Affairs, t.lewDelhi State of Tdangana, i6h Court Buildings at Hyderabad'

5. Or€ CC toSri. D V Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri M Phani Kumar' Advocate IOPUCI 7. Two CD Copbs l" Sr DUPSL E HIGH COURT DAf ED:22fi8112O25 .,.:. -\t' {fli:.\ir' --.,.::- l*).-) I JAN 2026 COMMON ORDER () CIVIL REV|S|ON pETtTtON Nos: 2806, 2910 anI 2%1 OF t ir^T a.J , \ 4- /." > 11) -) {- ) D]SMISSING THE CRPs oO .dpqdt 6\(at